Medal thieves to get reward..

A reward was offered for information leading to the return of the medal.... surely that doesn't include giving it to the thieves themselves?

Isn't it a bit strange? Steal something and then in-essence sell it back to the owner?

R

Or put it this way: when these guys are prosecuted... can't the money be recovered under the proceeds of crime legislation?

It fits the criteria: they money was made as part of a criminal activity.

R

in one of the herald stories yesterday it stated that if the money had gone to one of the thieves it could be recovered under the proceeds of crime thang

there was also mention of a similar case over art works

It's just WTF to think they could get any of the reward.

Reward = for info leading to arrest or crim or recovery of stolen item.

What if the crime had been rape?... Crim turns himself in for the $100,000 reward - does his five years in prison time and walks with the $100,000. It might not be a good swap but $100,000 is better than no $0.

R

Seems like you're making something out of nothing here - they would never pay the reward to someone they convicted for the crime. As it currently stands they have paid a reward - but have no charges even laid against anyone for that crime.
If the people they paid it to end up being people they succesfully prosecute for it, then the money will be recovered.

I thought we had no idea where that money had been paid anyway?

Um, recovering money is nearly impossible in practical sense. It's always "been spent" or disappeared or loaned to someone.

Their guilt has been established (not in court obviously) because they've admitted it.

Regarding the payment: 3rd paragraph of the Herald article and also on National Radio..

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10493660



R

That whole court definition thing is surely a part of it - as it currently stands from a process point of view, there are unidentified people that have allegedly committed a crime. Therefore we have only paid a reward to unknown uncharged individuals.

But that's all theoretical - practically, the police presumedly had to make the call on whether or not getting the medals back was important enough that they should overlook the fact that they think the money is going to people who undertook the crime. Agreed that it partly involves an acceptance of ransom payments but would we rather have had those medals disappear forever the for the sake of not handing over a possibly recoverable private reward?

Anyone watch the interview they had with one of them on Campbell Live? Fucking muppets!
'We stole them 'cos we knew they were valuable and had significant importance to NZ'. Then 'We didnt realise the significance of them so we returned them' (Or something to that effect).

One theory Ive heard and seems credible is that they were Maori activists looking to make a statement, but when they realised it would backfire on them they returned them.

Hope the origional interview tape mysteriously makes it into Police hands.

Police should let the SAS go and quietly deal to them.

It is likely that anyone who receives a reward like this is going to have been involved to some degree in the crime (or perhaps other crime).

I have no problem with the payment being made, it would be unfortunate to be principled but medal-less.

(I SECOND YOUR NOTION, HOO RAA!!!!)